The defendant contended that the wrong court was hearing the matter. Dubai: A Dubai court ruled that the electronics company’s complaint, which sought more than Dh1.2 million in damages from its former CEO, was rejected because it was submitted through the incorrect legal channel. The Dubai Civil Court (Court of First Instance) determined that the issue was essentially an employment-related matter and that, in accordance with the legislation, it should have been addressed to the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratization before being brought to court.
According to Emarat Al Youm, the company accused its former executive, who had previously been in charge of operations in its electronics division, of causing large financial and commercial losses by making decisions unilaterally without senior management’s consent, disrupting supply chains, and managing inventories poorly. The corporation requested in its statement of claim that the court designate a commercial and accounting expert to review its financial records, inventory, loss reports, and supply chains in order to determine the degree of product damage and shortages. It requested Dh100,000 in damages, Dh1.228 million in compensation, and legal interest.
According to the corporation, the defendant was given extensive executive and administrative authority, including complete control over work teams, suppliers, warehouses, operations, and distribution. It claimed that his actions quickly resulted in the loss of important suppliers, disruptions to the supply chain, a drop in sales, harm to his reputation, and the destruction of substantial amounts of goods and replacement parts.
The business claimed that once the employment arrangement ended, it carried out a thorough inventory audit and found significant shortages and losses that were recorded in internal reports. It claimed that these results demonstrated direct damages above Dh1.25 million, which led to the legal action. The defendant contended throughout the hearings that the case should not be admitted because, in accordance with employment law processes, the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratization should have been consulted first because the issue was primarily a labor concern. According to the court’s reasoning, the records demonstrated that the defendant was employed under a contract issued by the ministry and that the accused crimes took place while he was carrying out his duties. As a result, the claims were covered by the duties outlined in the Labour Relations Law. The court highlighted Article 54 of the statute, which states that parties must use the ministry to pursue amicable settlement methods before filing a lawsuit. The court noted that this duty relates to public order and cannot be circumvented. The court concluded that the corporation had not followed the legally required procedure since it could not find any proof that it had complained to the ministry prior to filing the action. As a result, it declared the case inadmissible due to procedural issues and released the business from paying court costs.
